Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted April 13, 2017 Everyone in team tank is saying we have blown our long term future because we won tonight and will likely pick 5th, instead of 4th, making it all but impossible to draft a good player. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT the entire point is we made it marginally less likely for success for zero long term value. For all we know we love player X more than any player in the draft, and we would have drafted him at 4 but he's still there at 5 so there's zero negative outcomes in that win. But we don't know the future. and if we love one player its significantly more preferable to only have 3 teams pass him up vs 4. 4.3% is nothing. but improving your odds at something by 4.3% over many different attempts might have drastically different results. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mauro Pedrosa 1,032 Report post Posted April 13, 2017 NOBODY IS SAYING THAT the entire point is we made it marginally less likely for success for zero long term value. For all we know we love player X more than any player in the draft, and we would have drafted him at 4 but he's still there at 5 so there's zero negative outcomes in that win. But we don't know the future. and if we love one player its significantly more preferable to only have 3 teams pass him up vs 4. 4.3% is nothing. but improving your odds at something by 4.3% over many different attempts might have drastically different results. That guy is a troll that posts the same "argument" over and over again. This is my first and final post about it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted April 13, 2017 No, they are saying it was stupid because it decreases our odds to get a good player. Of course it is possible still to get a good player at the 5th pick. The 5th pick might even become the best player in the draft. It is just more likely to get a good player with a higher draft pick. and you're counting on the guys picking 3rd and 4th not to realize the value of the guy you want at 5. His philosophy relies on other teams being worse at evaluation than your team. that's not a good thing to bet on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magicman28 295 Report post Posted April 13, 2017 and you're counting on the guys picking 3rd and 4th not to realize the value of the guy you want at 5. His philosophy relies on other teams being worse at evaluation than your team. that's not a good thing to bet on. He's essentially against losing meaningless games but for losing in a winnable meaningful draft. I'd stop banging my head man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
heisenberg 18 Report post Posted April 13, 2017 Confused by the Scott Perry ousting. Different mind. Different voice. Most experience out of everyone there. He would've done Cousins trade. Marc J Spears Don't understand this. Scott is widely respected w/ experience in Seattle, Detroit, great relationships, different voice/style from Hennigan … Sam Amick As @MarcJSpearsESPN noted, Magic would have had DeMarcus if not for Hennigan's concerns. Scott wanted him, was confident he could connect. Sam Amick Ya not trading young guys for 1 year of cousins who would hate losing here was smart tho Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magicman28 295 Report post Posted April 13, 2017 John Denton @JohnDenton555 Most accomplished GM candidate to @OrlandoMagic is Mitch Kupchak, who won 2 NBA titles as former GM of @Lakers.Unsure if he'll be considered Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magicman28 295 Report post Posted April 13, 2017 Woj Two league executives with Orlando ties – Detroit assistant GM Pat Garrity and San Antonio assistant GM Brian Wright – are on a list of preliminary candidates to replace Hennigan, but the search is expected to be extensive, league sources said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magicman28 295 Report post Posted April 13, 2017 David Baumann @DavidBaumannORL Exclusive: Just heard from Grant Hill on whether he'd like consideration for any @OrlandoMagic front office vacancy... #Magic: https://twitter.com/DavidBaumannORL/status/852540884419792896/photo/1 Sounds like more of a hell no to me. Also been confirmed Rob took the Whiteboard pic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A Better DJ & Photographer 457 Report post Posted April 13, 2017 I think Payton, Ross, Fornier, AG, and Vuc is a great lineup... for our 2nd string. All we need is a small tweak, bring in 5 starters and we are golden! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted April 13, 2017 He's essentially against losing meaningless games but for losing in a winnable meaningful draft. I'd stop banging my head man. this is actually a cognitive bias that psychologists are studying called probability neglect. They put things into black and white scenarios in order to avoid risk. So in this case the congnitive bias is stating "you can draft a great player anywhere" to mitigate the risk "having a bad season, or more precisely, having a bad season then drafting a player early that might become a bust". It doesn't matter that it's provable that you're significantly more likely to have success drafting a great player early. It's the same people who argue "I'd rather drive to X than fly because I'm afraid of dying in a plane accident". It doesn't matter that you're significantly more likely to die in a car accident, its a cognitive bias. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odin 137 Report post Posted April 13, 2017 and you're counting on the guys picking 3rd and 4th not to realize the value of the guy you want at 5. His philosophy relies on other teams being worse at evaluation than your team. that's not a good thing to bet on. Or just hoping that your guy who seems to have less potential at 5 will develop better than who was picked 4 or 3. Which is possible, but there is a reason higher picks tend to be better. He is also not understanding that the guys that are drafted low and become good often fall because they have a lot more question marks or possible weaknesses to their games than players drafted higher up. Yes, some will become good, but for every one that becomes good, there are a lot more players who had similar issues with their games that did not become good. Meanwhile, it is not as common for a pick 1-3 to not at least become a starter level player, which is why busts are so derided. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odin 137 Report post Posted April 13, 2017 this is actually a cognitive bias that psychologists are studying called probability neglect. They put things into black and white scenarios in order to avoid risk. So in this case the congnitive bias is stating "you can draft a great player anywhere" to mitigate the risk "having a bad season, or more precisely, having a bad season then drafting a player early that might become a bust". It doesn't matter that it's provable that you're significantly more likely to have success drafting a great player early. It's the same people who argue "I'd rather drive to X than fly because I'm afraid of dying in a plane accident". It doesn't matter that you're significantly more likely to die in a car accident, its a cognitive bias. http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm I think here is a pretty good statistical analysis on why you generally want as high draft picks as possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
